4 ms·

It's not quite that simple. The line isn't quite as hard between seed and 'nut'. Namely people may commonly refer to things as a nut when it is a seed. e.g. a

It's not quite that simple. The line isn't quite as hard between seed and 'nut'. Namely people may commonly refer to things as a nut when it is a seed. e.g. a Peanut is a seed, as are almonds, cashews, walnuts.

_heimdall 2y ago
This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.
- barrkel 2y ago
  This is only a problem if you mistake words for scientific classifications, instead of ways to convey meaning between communicating humans. Very few people using the word "berry" are discussing scientific classifications. It would be worse, not better, to make terms more scientifically precise. Berry refers to small juicy fruits, often in bright colors.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I was sticking with the context of the GP though. Maybe its pedantic to point out that many berries aren't technically berries, but that's much the same as the point that many nuts are actually seeds.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries Yes they are > tomatoes and bananas are No they’re not. The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds). Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals. If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        > If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world. They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
        _heimdall 2y ago
- calfuris 2y ago
  I disagree with this on multiple levels. For one, the word "berry" has multiple definitions, and I don't see why the botanical definition should be the only one that counts. If anything, the culinary one should have primacy, as that is the one that is far more relevant to far more people. Botanical jargon is useful to botanists but not very useful in general. And to descend to pedantry, blueberries should not have been on your list of examples. They are berries in both the culinary and the botanical senses of the word.
ljf 2y ago
Very true - I'll admit that while I knew that peanuts are legumes not nuts, I didn't know that the others you mentioned were not nuts. I learn something new every day (and my son has a severe allergy to many of them - though not all - so I should know these things!). And while I know my son can safely play with conkers, we most certainly have not tried to eat one!
- joncrocks 2y ago
  Ultimately it depends on the semantic meaning when you say 'nut'. They are not 'nuts' in terms of the technical definition, but they are in terms of 'what most people think of when you say nut'. There's also some things with nut in their name. c.f. Nutmeg, coconut. As others have mentioned, same kind of deal with 'berry'. And to follow up, if you're travelling abroad it's worth noting that some countries have different naming structures/separate out the families of 'nuts'. So be careful if you're asking if something has 'nuts' in, there can be a language barrier. e.g. tree nuts vs. Lupins (peanut family).
robin_reala 2y ago
On this subject, I’d recommend Richard Osman’s lecture on nuts for “The Unbelievable Truth”: https://www.reddit.com/user/pfobwpfo/comments/18ohqi2/nuts/ https://www.reddit.com/user/pfobwpfo/comments/18ohqi2/nuts/

_heimdall 2y ago

This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.

barrkel 2y ago
This is only a problem if you mistake words for scientific classifications, instead of ways to convey meaning between communicating humans. Very few people using the word "berry" are discussing scientific classifications. It would be worse, not better, to make terms more scientifically precise. Berry refers to small juicy fruits, often in bright colors.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I was sticking with the context of the GP though. Maybe its pedantic to point out that many berries aren't technically berries, but that's much the same as the point that many nuts are actually seeds.
School-Cotton 2y ago
> stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries Yes they are > tomatoes and bananas are No they’re not. The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds). Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals. If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world. They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
        _heimdall 2y ago
calfuris 2y ago
I disagree with this on multiple levels. For one, the word "berry" has multiple definitions, and I don't see why the botanical definition should be the only one that counts. If anything, the culinary one should have primacy, as that is the one that is far more relevant to far more people. Botanical jargon is useful to botanists but not very useful in general. And to descend to pedantry, blueberries should not have been on your list of examples. They are berries in both the culinary and the botanical senses of the word.

ljf 2y ago

Very true - I'll admit that while I knew that peanuts are legumes not nuts, I didn't know that the others you mentioned were not nuts. I learn something new every day (and my son has a severe allergy to many of them - though not all - so I should know these things!). And while I know my son can safely play with conkers, we most certainly have not tried to eat one!

joncrocks 2y ago
Ultimately it depends on the semantic meaning when you say 'nut'. They are not 'nuts' in terms of the technical definition, but they are in terms of 'what most people think of when you say nut'. There's also some things with nut in their name. c.f. Nutmeg, coconut. As others have mentioned, same kind of deal with 'berry'. And to follow up, if you're travelling abroad it's worth noting that some countries have different naming structures/separate out the families of 'nuts'. So be careful if you're asking if something has 'nuts' in, there can be a language barrier. e.g. tree nuts vs. Lupins (peanut family).

robin_reala 2y ago

On this subject, I’d recommend Richard Osman’s lecture on nuts for “The Unbelievable Truth”: https://www.reddit.com/user/pfobwpfo/comments/18ohqi2/nuts/ https://www.reddit.com/user/pfobwpfo/comments/18ohqi2/nuts/